Posted on 03/27/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/27/2006 8:53:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Just heard O'Reilly say that even though over 75% of the American people are opposed to illegal immigration, the Congress is unwilling to do anything about it. Now we all know that it is highly unlikely that representatives of either party are willing to commit to any meaningful immigration reform, so is it time for we the people through our state legislatures (requires two thirds of the states) to call for a convention to propose a constitutional amendment defining the federal government's role and responsibility for defending our borders? If so, how should such an amendment be worded and how would we go about getting two thirds of the state legislatures to act?
The essay below was posted by Publius at reply number 253:
The Founding Fathers left us two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.
The Framers also left us two methods to ratify amendments, and they authorized Congress to decide which method was appropriate. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress is limited to choosing one of the two methods.
One thing is perfectly clear: Article V gives the States Assembled in Convention the same proposal rights as Congress -- no more, no less. And no matter whether an amendment originates with Congress or a Convention for Proposing Amendments, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the Constitution.
The Framers’ Safety Valve
Fearing a tyrannical Congress would block the amendment process, the Framers formulated Article V, wording it so as to fence off the Constitution from hostile or careless hands. They were careful to enumerate Three Forbidden Subjects.
The last Forbidden Subject is implied, rather than explicit, like the first two. The Framers took great pains to avoid using the term “constitutional convention”. Instead, the Founding Document refers to a “Convention for proposing Amendments...as part of this Constitution”. An Article V Convention is strictly limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of 1787, and it is forbidden to consider, compose, or even discuss a new constitution. No matter what amendments may be proposed, the Constitution must remain intact, else the actions of the convention become unconstitutional. Unless Article V is amended first to allow it, a Convention for Proposing Amendments can never become a true constitutional convention, i.e., it can never write a new constitution. And neither can Congress.
How It Would Work
The Founding Document is silent about a Convention for Proposing Amendments, except for establishing its existence and the criterion of its call by Congress. But some things can be extrapolated from the Constitution.
The Practical Side of a Convention for Proposing Amendments
Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution prevents a sitting congressman or senator from taking a seat as a delegate at a Convention for Proposing Amendments unless he first resigns his seat in Congress. It is safe to say that few would be willing to give up the permanent power of Congress for the transitory power of an Article V Convention.
So who would be elected by the states? Yourself, your friends, and your neighbors.
There would be no need for a party endorsement or a campaign war chest. Anyone who raised a vast sum of money or took campaign contributions from vested interests would immediately fall under suspicion. After all, an Article V Convention is about the Constitution, not pork, perks and personal power.
Anyone who wishes to run for Convention Delegate will have to know his Constitution. He will have to express strong positions on possible amendment proposals and be able to defend those positions in public. He can’t hedge, waffle or use weasel words. Before the election, voters are sure to ask the candidate to submit his favorite amendment proposals in writing, which is the best way to avoid the slippery language of politics.
Most importantly, the candidate for Convention Delegate will have to be a person of integrity, respected in his community. And that eliminates most careerists of the current political class.
The conservative caricature of an Article V Convention is a disorderly mob of statists from Massachusetts, welfare recipients from New York, and New Agers and illegal aliens from California.
The liberal caricature of a convention is a gaggle of socially maladjusted individualists from Arizona, American Gothics from Indiana, Christers from Kansas, Johnny Rebs from South Carolina, and bearskin-clad mountain men from Alaska.
And to 49 states, the name of Texas conjures up the image of sharp businessmen skinning the other delegates out of their eye teeth.
They will all be there, and that is as it should be. At an Article V Convention, everyone will have an opportunity to make his case. And everyone will have to lay his cards on the table.
Here is a possible selection of things that one could expect at a convention.
But it’s a safe bet that only congressional term limits, a balanced budget, repeal of the income tax, a fix to the border problem, and one or more possible solutions to the problem of the Electoral College will get out of convention and be sent to the states for ratification.
And it's possible that none of the proposed amendments will receive the three-fourths ratification necessary to add them to the Constitution!
So why go through all this?
Because we as Americans need to know that our system works for us. Recent events have placed doubts in many minds, and there are those among us who would argue that the system does not work anymore and needs to be changed.
Perhaps.
But that is the beauty of the Constitution of the United States. It is designed to be changed by the people, either through their national government or -- should that government fail to satisfy their mandate -- through a second system of amendment. The Framers bequeathed us two methods of amendment so that our government and its actions will always be under our control, not the government’s.
Perhaps it’s time for the American people to show that government who’s in charge.
I agree wholeheartedly!! I believe that if anybody can start something that gets noticed it's Jim.
Thanks. Very interesting post.
Two things motivate the average member of Congress: fear and greed. The people cannot and should not curry the favor of politicians by attempting to satisfy their greed. That is the realm of special and vested interests.
That leaves fear. When you see 500,000 illegals and their supporters demonstrating in the streets, who do you think the politicians fear? It certainly isn't the citizens watching the show on their big screens.
Great post!
Er..you know that Willie Nelson supports homosexuals, right? Had very good things to say about "Bareback" Mtn. Nuff said.
Right now it's about illegal immigration. Come tomorrow, it could be about any number of subjects. And the GOP has shown that they differ from the Dems primarily in the sections of the Constitution they choose to bang upon.
So at some point, we either accept the fact that our political parties are applying ball-peen hammers 24-7 to our Constitutional rights, or stand up and demand something more.
After all, the McCain-Feingold legislation you properly have been decrying lately was signed by Bush and upheld by SCOTUS.
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,....
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
In the words of the American revolutionaries, our founders, "Unite or Die!".
Is it time for a constitutional convention called by the people re: illegal immigration?
Absolutely. No alternative. We've been had.
First, let me assure the readers that for much of the U.S. this is simply not perceived as any change from the immigration of the past - Ellis Island and all that, which was, of course, legal immigration. Those who live in affected areas have been marginalized as cranks, racists, and rednecks, mostly by politicians for whom any action in this regard is impossibly expensive politically or for whom inaction is politically expedient. Those map broadly (but not entirely) to Republicans and Democrats respectively. And in addition some of the latter really do believe that we are cranks, racists, and rednecks.
Worse, the enthusiasm for empowering the unfortunate, especially in California, has led to the formation of a large voting bloc that will protect its perceived interests by violence as well as voting if necessary. These enjoy a broad sympathy toward the downtrodden that would be creditable were it not so easily manipulated. And it is being manipulated.
At the very least we need to emphasize that we have laws in this regard that we insist on being obeyed, both by those in country illegally and those without. And we need to enforce them. I would hope that not to have to include a physical wall but things have gotten to the point where that is no longer an unthinkable solution and may even be the most practical, at least for now. And none of this can take place while politicians still believe that the consequences of crossing a loud, violent minority outweigh the cost to the country as a whole and the cost to those who love it and want to live in it legally.
A Constitutional Convention is, however, a very grave matter indeed. I would hope that sitting politicians could be inveighed to enforce the existing law without threatening them with so fundamental and potentially dangerous a course of action. They act as if this matter were on the level of divvying up funding for freeway overpasses. It isn't.
Set up a new party.
It's the only way to do it.
The Republicans CANNOT DO IT, because they are in such a close duel to the death with the Democrats.
There are nativist Democrats who cannot vote for Republicans, because they hate Republicans.
A new political party could carve a great swathe down the middle. It would not need to win a majority all at once. Just some seats, all around the country, at every level.
Then neither party could set up a majority without considering a coalition with it, and it could wreck a majority at any time.
Imagine how different Congress would run if NO party had the majority.
Look at how a small Green Party in Germany and Communist Party in France was able to get cabinet ministries and be the lynchpin of power.
A nationwide Immigration Reform Party that suddenly stood up would change everything.
Can 'we the people' come together as a plaintiff and present our corrupt senators with a legal document forcing them to follow the Constitution as it is written and failing to do so, will be brought up on charges before the high court by the American people for failing to uphold the oath they swore to when sworn into office?
Great post!!
We have juries that don't convict on violating that law.
Absolutely. No alternative. We've been had.
You want a socialist like fat teddy to get his grubby hands on the Constitution? Or the hildabeast? Good God have mercy!!!!
Good post. And would spur some strained discussion at cocktail parties in Washington, D.C. .
Which is more recently resembling a Versailles on the Potomac.
Suffice it to say, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on that subject.
However, your reference to Daschle relates to my broader point.
Namely, that the people's will is more powerful than any other force in American politics.
South Dakotans kept reelecting Tom Daschle precisely because they believed that he represented their interests in Washington D.C., in spite of philosophical differences.
Once it was brought to their attention just how little he and they had in common-and how ineffective he was in helping their state from a nonpartisan perspective-they defeated him.
However, all of the expensive ad buys, and RNC phone banks would not have made the slightest bit of difference if the people of South Dakota felt that he should be elected to a fourth term in office.
Yes, it's almost impossible to defeat incumbent senators, but what makes it even more difficult is the apathetic attitude that so many Americans take to politics.
McCain-Feingold, a.k.a. The Incumbent Protection Act, has made it even more difficult.
However, in some ways that anti-Constitutional desecration was an illustration of how weak that legislative chamber really is.
It showed us how petrified our purported voices in Washington our of their constituents.
If we can harness that fear for our advantage-in order to enact real change-then I guarantee you that this atmosphere of alienation and apathy will start to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.